Fixin' it? "Code of ethics"

Quote:
A maker should have the undeniable right to refurbish his own knives and sell them "as is", without saying old or new.
Where did that come from?
 
2knife said:
Just for sake of argument let's pose the following:
A maker should have the undeniable right to refurbish his own knives and sell them "as is", without saying old or new. Where is he at fault? Exactly what difference will it ever make to anyone?
David
Click to expand...

Right there.
 
2Knife wrote:

Just for sake of argument let's pose the following:
A maker should have the undeniable right to refurbish his own knives and sell them "as is", without saying old or new. Where is he at fault? Exactly what difference will it ever make to anyone?
Click to expand...

David,

Does this statement mean that it is okay for a maker to take a knife that he made 10 years ago, when his prices were lower and his fit and finish were not as good, and refurbish it and sell it as a new knife?

Of course the answer is no. Anyone selling a knife that has been refurbished should disclose that fact, whether he is a collector, purveyor or maker. It might not be illegal to not mention it but it is unethical.

Jim Treacy
 
it's too bad that the article isn't readily available for forumites to read.
I'm sure that if you guys read it, you'd get a better look from a different perspective. That doesn't mean you're wrong in any way, but that I think you'd have a better sense of the context of the article, and the spirit in which it was written.

However, this dialogue is excellent, thought provoking stuff. Well, some of it:).
 
danbot said:
Of course the original maker who refurbishes (not just "fluff and buff") his knife BECOMES a PART of the deception... But if he/she is not aware of the INTENT of the owner to mis-represent the knife for sale...IMHO he or she is NOT GUILTY of fraud. That person has broken your trust, and should be dealt with accordingly.
Click to expand...

Would that not also apply to a second maker - not the original maker - who refinishes the knife at the legitimate request of the owner, who then subsequently, and without that second maker's knowledge, fails to disclose the refurb on resale?

Would that second maker not LIKEWISE have been UNAWARE of the owner's INTENT to misrepresent the knife?

Doesn't this all just point to the fact that the ethical transgression lies in the misrepresentation of the owner, not the identity of the refinisher?

Roger
 
John T Wylie Jr said:
.... but based on what Lorien posted , it doesn't say in there " unaware of intent" , it says in reference to another maker doing the work : If the owner then sells the knife as mint or without stating that you worked on the knife, I feel it becomes fraud and you become a part of the deception.

Which was what I was inquiring to Ed to clearly state his view as to if there are any differences , which he didn't do ( if he did , and someone can decode his message , I for one would appreciate it ).

Like you , I feel if one maker ( non original maker ) is to be seen as part of the deception , so is the other ( original maker ). I still believe, it all falls back to the seller to disclose the true facts , either maker is simply providing a service and neither can be GUILTY of fraud.
Click to expand...

Exactly correct. Neither can be guilty of fraud - and neither should be branded as an unethical perpetrator of a contemptible atrocity.

Roger
 
Once a knife leaves a maker, it is no longer theirs and anyone can have a crack at it; Including the owner. If you believe a knife is a "child" of the maker...remember even human children leave home and are "refinshed" by their spouse(s), children and life experiences. Sometimes doctors even install new parts :)

Do any of you buy refinished knives? Why put all the onus of fraud concerning a refinished knife on the seller? When buying knives, if you know knives, you can tell when one is refinished. I've bought one knife from a dealer and it was refinished by the maker (very well known master smith). It came with no papers concerning its additional work, but my eye could instantly tell it had been reworked and by an expert. If a buyer cannot tell a knife is refinished, no matter who did it, should they even care?
 
brownshoe said:
Once a knife leaves a maker, it is no longer theirs and anyone can have a crack at it; Including the owner. If you believe a knife is a "child" of the maker...remember even human children leave home and are "refinshed" by their spouse(s), children and life experiences. Sometimes doctors even install new parts :)
Click to expand...

I have made a few knives. I have a child. I find not even the most miniscule or remote equivalence between the two.

Roger
 
I have 3 sons , made around 40 knives or so thus far , no comparison between the two , I do not consider my knives "children" in any way shape or form. Seems rather absurd to me. I have heard some refer to their creations as their babies , so far all have done so in a joking manner , can't fathom there are people who actually feel that they are. Makes me wonder if they ever raised sons & daughters. (*Pets don't count as kids*)

Knives are mere objects that are made and sold (sometimes given away). We own the objects , the objects do not own us. Letting a material object own you indicates you have lost touch with reality.

Some knives are placed in safes never to be used , some are used sparingly , some are used extensively. But at the end of the day , that is all they are , tools , hopefully designed to be used and have the performance to match. You will never know how that safe queen performs as a knife , you may have an idea , but you will NEVER know for certain. Seems a shame doesn't it ?

Discussing with someone the other night , they felt when purchasing a custom knife , you as the owner have the duty to make sure that the item is around for future generations to enjoy in its original state.

I disagreed , in my opinion , if I pay for something , it is mine to enjoy however I wish. His arguement was " What if it is a priceless one of a kind knife ? "

My answer " if I bought it , it is no longer priceless now is it ? " :)

I can't speak for Tom , but for those that I have spoken to that have had blades reground by him , all were raving about the performance advantage , in some cases it was a mere thinning of the blade thickness to provide a thinner edge , other times I have heard from people who wanted the grinds higher , in essence changing the geometry of the blade , removing the " wedge effect ". In every case , they all felt the knife performed better after the regrind , and I believe they are correct !
 
John T Wylie Jr said:
I have 3 sons , made around 40 knives or so thus far , no comparison between the two , I do not consider my knives "children" in any way shape or form. Seems rather absurd to me. I have heard some refer to their creations as their babies , so far all have done so in a joking manner , can't fathom there are people who actually feel that they are. Makes me wonder if they ever raised sons & daughters. (*Pets don't count as kids*)

Knives are mere objects that are made and sold (sometimes given away). We own the objects , the objects do not own us. Letting a material object own you indicates you have lost touch with reality.

Some knives are placed in safes never to be used , some are used sparingly , some are used extensively. But at the end of the day , that is all they are , tools , hopefully designed to be used and have the performance to match. You will never know how that safe queen performs as a knife , you may have an idea , but you will NEVER know for certain. Seems a shame doesn't it ?

Discussing with someone the other night , they felt when purchasing a custom knife , you as the owner have the duty to make sure that the item is around for future generations to enjoy in its original state.
I disagreed , in my opinion , if I pay for something , it is mine to enjoy however I wish. His arguement was " What if it is a priceless one of a kind knife ? "

My answer " if I bought it , it is no longer priceless now is it ? " :)

I can't speak for Tom , but for those that I have spoken to that have had blades reground by him , all were raving about the performance advantage , in some cases it was a mere thinning of the blade thickness to provide a thinner edge , other times I have heard from people who wanted the grinds higher , in essence changing the geometry of the blade , removing the " wedge effect ". In every case , they all felt the knife performed better after the regrind , and I believe they are correct !
Click to expand...

The above hits on a larger question as to if buyers/collectors of Art and/or historical items in general have a responsibility to maintain and preserve such as original for future generations?

Just because someone can buy a 1/2 million dollar painting does it give them the right to deface it?
Is it right that some historical buildings and real estate are protected by law against modernization and development?

Applied to knives, just because someone owns a Moran St-24 is it acceptable for them to grind the blade and handle to fit their personnel preference?

John, we do know how many of these safe queens perform as they are tested by the maker and/or created utilzing the same proven processes he has used hundreds of times. In my opinion the shame is that some believe just because a knife is a "safe queen" that's it's not capable of performing to very high degree.
 
Last edited:
Kevin Jones said:
Applied to knives, just because someone owns a Moran St-24 is it acceptable for them to grind the blade and handle to fit their personnel preference?
Click to expand...

Acceptable to whom? Or put another way - who has the right to tell the owner that they are wrong? I mean, beyond merely expressing a personal opinion, which we all more or less have the right to do?

And more to the point - I'm sure you will agree that not every custom knife has the "historical significance" of an ST-24. You may further agree that really very precious few do. Do these considerations apply as well to all of the untold thousands of custom knives made by all the unknown thousands of custom knifemakers worldwide? If not, who gets to decide when the historical significance reaches such a level that alteration is "unacceptable", how is such a decision communicated and what it its effect?

As an aside - we now understandably regard such knives as the ST-23 / 24 with no small amount of reverence, but let's not lose sight of the fact that they were designed by Bill to be actual fighting knives. If an ST-23-equipped soldier in Vietnam found that an in-country alteration of the handle or guard made the knife easier for him to hold in hand or carry with his gear, does anyone think he would have been condemned by Bill as having committed a "contemptible atrocity" for having that alteration done?

Roger
 
RogerP said:
Acceptable to whom? Or put another way - who has the right to tell the owner that they are wrong? I mean, beyond merely expressing a personal opinion, which we all more or less have the right to do?

And more to the point - I'm sure you will agree that not every custom knife has the "historical significance" of an ST-24. You may further agree that really very precious few do. Do these considerations apply as well to all of the untold thousands of custom knives made by all the unknown thousands of custom knifemakers worldwide? If not, who gets to decide when the historical significance reaches such a level that alteration is "unacceptable", how is such a decision communicated and what it its effect?

As an aside - we now understandably regard such knives as the ST-23 / 24 with no small amount of reverence, but let's not lose sight of the fact that they were designed by Bill to be actual fighting knives. If an ST-23-equipped soldier in Vietnam found that an in-country alteration of the handle or guard made the knife easier for him to hold in hand or carry with his gear, does anyone think he would have been condemned by Bill as having committed a "contemptible atrocity" for having that alteration done?

Roger
Click to expand...

Good points Roger.
I would be interesting in your opinions regarding my other questions.

Not trying to take this thread off topic, however it's seems it's gone in every direction and then back again and I feel my questions are related to subject.
 
Kevin Jones said:
Just because someone can buy a 1/2 million dollar painting does it give them the right to deface it? They paid for it , they should be able to do what they want. What gives anyone else the right to tell someone how to use what they paid for ? They owe it to nobody but them to be happy with their purchase , they owe the community nothing.

Is it right that some historical buildings and real estate are protected by law against modernization and development? Dunno , not something I have looked into , but again , if one person buys something , it is theirs , not OURS , not yours , but theirs .

Applied to knives, just because someone owns a Moran St-24 is it acceptable for them to grind the blade and handle to fit their personnel preference? Sure , why not ? Do they owe it to you as a fellow collector to maintain it in is original state ? Did you send them $$$ to help buy it ? If not , then how can you feel you have the right to tell them what to do with the item they bought ? ( This is just discussion Kevin , I am sincerely asking , not arguing ). Tell me Kevin , is it right that many of these knives are bought , and tucked away , never to be seen by the knife community again ? Blasphemy ! ;)

John, we do know how many of these safe queens perform as they are tested by the maker and/or created utilzing the same proven processes he has used hundreds of times. In my opinion the shame is that some believe just because a knife is a "safe queen" that's it's not capable of performing to very high degree. Hypothetically I guess , although in theory things are the same , while in application , they can be different , there is only one way to know for sure , and that is to use it .
Click to expand...

My comment regarding the safe queen was a tongue in cheek response to Ed inquiring earlier as to why there was so much talk on appearance , and less on performance. Performance can only be verified in use , it can be theoried due to past works , but that individual one must be used to be sure of the performance. I understand there are knives made that are never intended to be used , I don't have a problem with safe queens , up until someone who has never used it tries to talk about how well it performs.

Drag racing anyone ? Same engine , same specs , difference performance due to variables. Which is why racers have test & tune days. They could be using the exact same setup as last year , but due to variables , performance is different. And if multi million dollar operations have to test & tune each one , that tells me alot.

call me a naysayer , I don't believe just theory , show me application everytime ( yes the engineers here at work hate me too ).

Great discussion points Kevin.
 
I haven't been vocal, but will express my views. If I own the knife, I'll do whatever the hell I want to with it. There is no ethical or moral issue involved - unless I cheat someone or lie to someone trying to sell it - then I am more than morally and ethically suspect, of course. Seems kinda simple to me, but apparently not to those who try to wax philosophical about it - give 'em a big "DUH".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top